Mobilizing Greater Crop and Land Potentials Sustainably

The supply side of the food security engine is the way we farm. The current engine of conventional tillage farming is faltering and needs to be replaced. This presentation will address supply side issues of agriculture to meet future agricultural demands for food and industry using the alternate no-till Conservation Agriculture (CA) paradigm (involving no-till farming with mulch soil cover and diversified cropping) that is able to raise productivity sustainably and efficiently, reduce inputs, regenerate degraded land, minimise soil erosion, and harness the flow of ecosystem services. CA is an ecosystems approach to farming capable of enhancing not only the economic and environmental performance of crop production and land management, but also promotes a mindset change for producing ‘more from less’, the key attitude towards sustainable production intensification. CA is now spreading globally in all continents at an annual rate of 10 Mha and covers some 157 Mha of cropland. Today global agriculture produces enough food to feed three times the current population of 7.21 billion. In 1976, when the world population was 4.15 billion, world food production far exceeded the amount necessary to feed that population. However, our urban and industrialised lifestyle leads to wastage of food of some 30%-40%, as well as waste of enormous amount of energy and protein while transforming crop-based food into animal-derived food; we have a higher proportion of people than ever before who are obese; we continue to degrade our ecosystems including much of our agricultural land of which some 400 Mha is reported to be abandoned due to severe soil and land degradation; and yields of staple cereals appear to have stagnated. These are signs of unsustainability at the structural level in the society, and it is at the structural level, for both supply side and demand side, that we need transformed mind sets about production, consumption and distribution. CA not only provides the possibility of increased crop yields for the low input smallholder farmer, it also provides a pro-poor rural and agricultural development model to support agricultural intensification in an affordable manner. For the high output farmer, it offers greater efficiency (productivity) and profit, resilience and stewardship. For farming anywhere, it addresses the root causes of agricultural land degradation, sub-optimal ecological crop and land potentials or yield ceilings, and poor crop phenotypic expressions or yield gaps. As national economies expand and diversify, more people become integrated into the economy and are able to access food. However, for those whose livelihoods continue to depend on agriculture to feed themselves and the rest of the world population, the challenge is for agriculture to produce the needed food and raw material for industry with minimum harm to the environment and the society, and to produce it with maximum efficiency and resilience against abiotic and biotic stresses, including those arising from climate change. There is growing empirical and scientific evidence worldwide that the future global supplies of food and agricultural raw materials can be assured sustainably at much lower environmental and economic cost by shifting away from conventional tillage-based food and agriculture systems to no-till CA-based food and agriculture systems. To achieve this goal will require effective national and global policy and institutional support (including research and education).

How can the land managers and his multi-stakeholder network at the farm level influence the multifunctional transitions pathways?

The changing role of agriculture is at the core of transition pathways in many rural areas. Productivism, post-productivism and multifunctionality have been targeted towards a possible conceptualization of the transition happening in rural areas. The factors of change, including productivist and post-productivist trends, are combined in various ways and have gone in quite diverse directions and intensities, in individual regions and localities. Even, in the same holding, productivist and post-productivist strategies can co-exist spatially, temporally, structurally, leading to a higher complexity in changing patterns. In south Portugal extensive landscapes, dominated by traditionally managed agro-forestry systems under a fuzzy land use pattern, multifunctionality at the farm level is indeed conducted by different stakeholders whose interests may or not converge: a multifunctional land management may indeed incorporate post-productivist and productivist agents. These stakeholders act under different levels of ownership, management and use, reflecting a particular land management dynamic, in which different interests may exist, from commercial production to a variety of other functions (hunting, bee-keeping, subsistence farming, etc.), influencing management at the farm level and its supposed transition trajectory. This multistakeholder dynamic is composed by the main land-manager (the one who takes the main decisions), sub land-managers (land-managers under the rules of the main land-manager), workers and users (locals or outsiders), whose interest and action within the holding may vary differently according to future (policy, market, etc.) trends, and therefore reflect more or less resilient systems. The goal of the proposed presentation is to describe the multi-stakeholder relations at the farm level, its spatial expression and the factors influencing the land management system resilience in face of the transition trends in place.

Landscape Identity: implications for policy making

Landscape is recognised to be an important asset for people’s quality of life and people and the landscape interact in multiple and complex ways. Both in science and policy, this interaction has been dealt with in a fragmented way, depending on the objectives, the disciplinary perspective, as well as the used concep- tual backdrop. In this wider framework, landscape identity emerges in policy discourses as a powerful argument to value landscape but it lacks an operationalised framework for policymaking. This paper has two major goals. One is to review the conceptual dialogue between landscape’s and people’s identity. The other is to identify contents of identity in the landscape (i.e. attributes used to define landscape identity) and the complexity of the identity (i.e. dimensions used to define landscape identity) as a way to increase efficiency in more spatially targeted policies. Above all, this paper discusses how landscape identity has been approached, in order to get an improved understanding of its potential for introducing the landscape concept at multiple levels of governance and how an increased knowledge base might be useful to inform policy making.